Prosody-Based Automatic Segmentation of Speech into Sentences and Topics

A crucial step in processing speech audio data for information extraction, topic detection, or browsing/playback is to segment the input into sentence and topic units. Speech segmentation is challenging, since the cues typically present for segmenting text (headers, paragraphs, punctuation) are absent in spoken language. We investigate the use of prosody (information gleaned from the timing and melody of speech) for these tasks. Using decision tree and hidden Markov modeling techniques, we combine prosodic cues with word-based approaches, and evaluate performance on two speech corpora, Broadcast News and Switchboard. Results show that the prosodic model alone performs on par with, or better than, word-based statistical language models -- for both true and automatically recognized words in news speech. The prosodic model achieves comparable performance with significantly less training data, and requires no hand-labeling of prosodic events. Across tasks and corpora, we obtain a significant improvement over word-only models using a probabilistic combination of prosodic and lexical information. Inspection reveals that the prosodic models capture language-independent boundary indicators described in the literature. Finally, cue usage is task and corpus dependent. For example, pause and pitch features are highly informative for segmenting news speech, whereas pause, duration and word-based cues dominate for natural conversation.Comment: 30 pages, 9 figures. To appear in Speech Communication 32(1-2), Special Issue on Accessing Information in Spoken Audio, September 200

Comparing human and machine vowel classification

In this study we compare human ability to identify vowels with a machine learning approach. A perception experiment for 14 Hungarian vowels in isolation and embedded in a carrier word was accomplished, and a C4.5 decision tree was trained on the same material. A comparison between the identification results of the subjects and the classifier showed that in three of four conditions (isolated vowel quantity and identity, embedded vowel identity) the performance of the classifier was superior and in one condition (embedded vowel quantity) equal to the subjects’ performance. This outcome can be explained by perceptual limits of the subjects and by stimulus properties. The classifier’s performance was significantly weakened by replacing the continuous spectral information by binary 3-Bark thresholds as proposed in phonetic literature [8]. Parts of the resulting decision trees can be interpreted phonetically, which could qualify this classifier as a tool for phonetic research

Comparing a statistical and a rule-based tagger for German

In this paper we present the results of comparing a statistical tagger for German based on decision trees and a rule-based Brill-Tagger for German. We used the same training corpus (and therefore the same tag-set) to train both taggers. We then applied the taggers to the same test corpus and compared their respective behavior and in particular their error rates. Both taggers perform similarly with an error rate of around 5%. From the detailed error analysis it can be seen that the rule-based tagger has more problems with unknown words than the statistical tagger. But the results are opposite for tokens that are many-ways ambiguous. If the unknown words are fed into the taggers with the help of an external lexicon (such as the Gertwol system) the error rate of the rule-based tagger drops to 4.7%, and the respective rate of the statistical taggers drops to around 3.7%. Combining the taggers by using the output of one tagger to help the other did not lead to any further improvement.Comment: 8 page

Psychometrics in Practice at RCEC

A broad range of topics is dealt with in this volume: from combining the psychometric generalizability and item response theories to the ideas for an integrated formative use of data-driven decision making, assessment for learning and diagnostic testing. A number of chapters pay attention to computerized (adaptive) and classification testing. Other chapters treat the quality of testing in a general sense, but for topics like maintaining standards or the testing of writing ability, the quality of testing is dealt with more specifically.\ud All authors are connected to RCEC as researchers. They present one of their current research topics and provide some insight into the focus of RCEC. The selection of the topics and the editing intends that the book should be of special interest to educational researchers, psychometricians and practitioners in educational assessment